Attic Inscriptions in UK Collections British Museum
-
Upload
others
-
View
6
-
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Stephen Lambert
AIUK VOLUME
2020
Attic Inscriptions in UK Collections is an open access publication,
which means that all content is available without charge to the
user or his/her institution. You are allowed to read, download,
copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the
articles in this journal without asking prior permission from
either the publisher or the author.
C b n a This paper is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.
Original copyright remains with the contributing author and a
citation should be made when the article is quoted, used or
referred to in another work.
Cover image: © The Trustees of the British Museum
This paper is part of a systematic publication of all the Attic
inscriptions in UK collections by Attic Inscriptions Online as part
of a research project supported by the Arts and Humanities Research
Council (AHRC): AH/P015069/1.
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Stephen Lambert
PROJECT TEAM Peter Liddel Polly Low Robert Pitt Finlay McCourt
Irene Vagionakis
For further information see atticinscriptions.com
AIUK Attic Inscriptions in UK Collections
AIO ADVISORY BOARD Josine Blok Peter Liddel Polly Low Angelos P.
Matthaiou S. Douglas Olson P.J. Rhodes
AIUK Volume 4.3B Published 2020
AIUK is an AIO Papers series ISSN 2054-6769 (Print) ISSN 2054-6777
(Online)
Contents
i
CONTENTS
1. Overview of the Inscriptions 1
2. Collection History 2
2. The Inscriptions 6
2 Ephebic Monument 11
3 Ephebic Monument 16
4 Ephebic Monument 19
5 Ephebic Monument 22
Preface
ii
PREFACE
Part 3B of our new edition of the Attic inscriptions in the British
Museum covers the five
inscriptions in the collection which are or may be from monuments
commemorating the
participation of young men in the ephebate, the programme of
military training and
education that is one of the most richly documented institutions of
Hellenistic and Roman
Athens. This type of inscription also features in the collection of
the Ashmolean Museum,
Oxford, which we are publishing at the same time as this volume, as
AIUK 11, edited by
Christopher de Lisle. It became apparent to both of us while
working on these inscriptions
that there was a pressing need for a publication which supplied an
epigraphical and
historical overview of the Athenian ephebate in the Roman period,
and which would both
be informed by, and provide context for, our new editions. Such an
overview, authored by
de Lisle, is also published at the same time as this volume, as AIO
Papers 12. As usual,
our AIUK volumes are supplemented by publications of the
inscriptions with lighter
annotation on the main AIO site aimed at museum visitors, both real
and virtual. In
addition, AIO Papers 12 is supplemented by editions on the main
site of a selection of
other key ephebic inscriptions of Roman Athens, also edited and
translated by de Lisle.
We hope the reader will find it helpful in tracing a path through
this forest of material that
all of these publications, or sets of publications, are connected
by liberal use of hyperlinks.
As in other parts of our publication of the British Museum’s
collection, it is fitting
both to express admiration for the work of Edward Hicks, but also
to register the distance
scholarship has travelled since his 1874 edition of this material
in GIBM I. All five of
these inscriptions were included in Hicks’ edition, but two of the
five (1 and 5) have since
been discovered to be parts of the same inscriptions as fragments
still in Athens; one of
them (1), dated by Hicks “not earlier than the second century AD”
has since been shown
to belong to the second century BC; Robert Pitt has discovered
that, while it was still in
Athens, 3 was copied by the mid-eighteenth century physician,
Anthony Askew, enabling
several of the names on it to be read more fully; and subsequent
work on the ephebic
inscriptions of Roman Athens, including most recently that of de
Lisle, has transformed
our capacity to understand this genre of inscriptions in their
historical context.
As usual, I have accumulated many debts of gratitude in preparing
this volume:
pride of place academically goes to Chris de Lisle and Robert Pitt,
the extent of whose
contributions will be obvious from the number of times I refer to
them. The two
anonymous reviewers also made invaluable comments on a draft, as
did Mike Edwards,
Peter Liddel and P. J. Rhodes. I also gratefully acknowledge once
again the support of the
British Museum staff, especially Peter Higgs, Alexandra Villing,
and Alex Truscott; the
British School at Athens and the Seminar für Alte Geschichte of the
University of
Heidelberg for help of many kinds, including enabling access to
their excellent libraries at
times in 2020 when, because of the Covid-19 pandemic, library
access was not possible in
the UK; and in particular Nicolai Futás in Heidelberg and Katharine
Donaldson in Athens
for bibliographical assistance, including during “lockdown”. I
thank Alex Truscott for
assistance in double-checking readings from the stones when the BM
was inaccessible to
researchers in autumn 2020. Last but not least, I thank my brother,
Julian, for the
contributions behind the scenes.
As in previous parts of this edition of the Attic inscriptions in
the BM, I give an
indication of the location of each inscription within the Museum at
the time when I carried
out my autopsy. Also as in previous volumes I do not explore in
detail the early
publication history of the inscriptions except where it bears on
findspots or collection
history. I indicate the source of Boeckh’s information about an
inscription in brackets after
the relevant CIG reference; * indicates that a work contains
further references to early
bibliography.
Abbreviations
iv
ABBREVIATIONS
https://www.atticinscriptions.com/browse/bysource/ and in
addition:
Athenian Onomasticon: seangb.org
Balzat 2019: J.-S. Balzat, “Roman Names and Naming Practices in
Greek Poleis”, in R.
Parker ed., Changing Names. Tradition and Innovation in Ancient
Greek Onomastics,
217-36
Biris 1940: Κ. E. Biris (Κ. Η. Μπρης), Α κκλησαι τν παλαιν
θηνν
Byrne, RCA: S. G. Byrne, Roman Citizens of Athens (2003)
Camia 2014: F. Camia, “Political Elite and Priestly Posts in Athens
During the Roman
Imperial Period: Some Considerations”, ZPE 188, 139-48
Camia 2017a: F. Camia, “Priests in Roman Greece: in Search of a
Social Perspective”, in
A. D. Rizakis, F. Camia, S. Zoumbaki eds., Social Dynamics under
Roman Rule. Mobility
and Status Change in the Provinces of Achaia and Macedonia,
349-70
Camia 2017b: F. Camia, “Cultic and Social Dynamics in the
Eleusinian Sanctuary Under
the Empire”, in E. Muñiz Grijalvo, J. M. Cortés Copete, F. Lozano
Gómez eds., Empire
and Religious Change in Greek Cities under Roman Rule, 45-66
CIG: A. Boeckh ed., Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (I [including
Attica] 1828, II
1843, III [with J. Franz] 1853, IV Indices [H. Roehl] 1877)
Combe 1815: T. Combe, A Description of the Collection of Ancient
Marbles in the British
Museum
Archäologischen Zeitung 22 (Feb. 1864), 161-76
Cook 1985: B. F. Cook, The Townley Marbles
Cook 1987: B. F. Cook, Greek Inscriptions
de Lisle 2020: “The Ephebate in Roman Athens: Outline and Catalogue
of Inscriptions”,
AIO Papers 12
Ellis 1846: H. Ellis, The Townley Gallery of Classic Sculpture in
the British Museum
Follet 1976: S. Follet, Athènes au IIe et au IIIe siècle: études
chronologiques et
prosopographiques
Hicks, GIBM I: E. L. Hicks, Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the
British Museum. Part 1
Attika (1874)
IG III: W. Dittenberger, ed., Inscriptiones Atticae aetatis Romanae
(I 1878, II 1882, III R.
Wünsch ed., Defixionum tabellae in Attica regione repertae,
1897)
Kaltsas 2002: N. Kaltsas, Sculpture in the National Archaeological
Museum, Athens,
Translated by D. Hardy
Le Bas and Waddington: P. Le Bas et W. H. Waddington, Voyage
archéologique en Grèce
et en Asie Mineure fait par ordre du gouvernement Français pendant
les années 1843 et
1844. 2: Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Grèce et
en Asie Mineure. 1:
Attique
Liddel and Low 2019: P. Liddel and P. Low, “Four Unpublished
Inscriptions (and One
Neglected Collector) from the World Museum, Liverpool”, in C. F.
Noreña and N.
Papazarkadas eds., From Document to History. Epigraphic Insights
into the Greco-Roman
World, 408-30
Perrin 2007: E. Perrin-Saminadayar, Education, culture et société à
Athènes: les acteurs
de la vie culturelle athénienne (229-88): un tout petit monde
Perrin 2013: E. Perrin-Saminadayar, “Stratégies collectives,
familiales et individuelles en
oeuvre au sein de l’éphébie attique: l’instrumentalisation d’une
institution publique (IIIe s.
av. J.-C.- IIe s. apr. J.-C.)”, in P. Fröhlich and P. Hamon eds.,
Groupes et associations
dans les cités grecques (IIIe siècle av. J.-C. – IIe siècle apr.
J.-C.), 159-75
Pitt forthcoming: R. Pitt, The Travels and Epigraphic Manuscript of
Dr. Anthony Askew
Poulou 2016: T. Poulou, “Giovanni Battista Lusieri, Lord Elgin’s
Unknown Agent and his
Excavations in Athens”, in F. Mallouchou-Tufano and A. Malikourti
eds., 200 Years the
Parthenon Marbles in the British Museum: New Contributions to the
Issue, 62-81
Rubinstein et al. 1991: L. Rubinstein, L. Bjertrup, M. H. Hansen,
T. H. Nielsen and T.
Vestergaard, “Adoption in Hellenistic and Roman Athens”, C&M
42, 1991, 139-51
Sironen 1997: E. Sironen, The Late Roman and Early Byzantine
Inscriptions of Athens
and Attica
Sourlas 2015: D. S. Sourlas, “Ανκδοτη επιγραφ Θησειδν απ την Αθνα”,
in A.
P. Matthaiou and N. Papazarkadas eds., ΑΞΩΝ: Studies in Honor of
Ronald S. Stroud,
299-322
St. Clair 1998: W. St. Clair, Lord Elgin and the Marbles. The
Controversial History of the
Parthenon Sculptures3 (first ed., 1967)
Stoneman 1985: R. Stoneman, “The Abbé Fourmont and Greek
Archaeology”, Boreas 8,
190-98
Stubbings 1976: F. Stubbings, “Anthony Askew’s ‘Liber Amicorum’”,
Transactions of
the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 6, 306-21
Threatte: L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions I
Phonology (1980); II
Morphology (1996)
Tracy 1990: S. V. Tracy, Attic Letter-Cutters of 229-86 BC [=
Tracy, ALC]
Traill PAA: J. S. Traill, Persons of Ancient Athens. 21 vols.
(1994-2012)
von Moock 1998: D. W. von Moock, Die figürlichen Grabstelen Attikas
in der Kaiserzeit
Wilson 1992: P. R. Wilson, A Corpus of Ephebic Inscriptions from
Roman Athens, 31 BC-
267 AD (PhD Dissertation, Monash)
1. Athenian Ephebic Catalogues in the British Museum
1
1. Overview of the inscriptions
We saw in AIUK 4.2 that the two latest inscribed decrees of the
Athenian Council and
Assembly in the British Museum’s collection feature the ephebate,
the system of military
training and education for young men which is richly documented in
the Athenian
epigraphical record from 334/3 BC until the sack of Athens by the
Heruli in 267 AD.
AIUK 4.2 no. 16, honouring the ephebes of 41/40 or 40/39 BC, is a
fragment of one of five
inscriptions carrying honorific decrees of the Council and Assembly
dating between Sulla
and Augustus. After that the inscribed honorific decrees cease, and
AIUK 4.2 no. 17, of
the early third century AD, making arrangements for the ephebes to
convey the sacred
objects for the Eleusinian Mysteries, is the only inscribed
Assembly decree of the Roman
imperial age relating directly to the ephebate. In place of the
inscribed decrees, however,
this period produced an abundance of other kinds of commemorative
monument.1 These
typically contained catalogues of some or all the ephebes of a
particular year, and might
also name the annual officials of the city who commanded them, and
the staff (often
permanent) responsible for their training and support.2 There are
four such inscriptions in
the British Museum’s collection (2-5). The latest, 5, is much the
best preserved, and
contains a complete roster of the ephebes of, probably, 194/5 AD,
inscribed on a plaque in
the shape of a shield set up by the kosmetes (ephebic
superintendent), who, in a kind of
footnote (or rather “sidenote”) to the catalogue, addresses the
viewer directly in the first
person to explain that he had used his son to perform the duties of
a deputy (antikosmetes)
without formally appointing him as such. 5 is an example of the
official commemorative
roster of the entire ephebic year-class, usually set up by the
kosmetes.3 The genre emerged
in the late first century AD, and in 2, of ca. 80 AD, we perhaps
have a fragment of one of
the two or three earliest extant examples. There is reason to think
that 4, a fragment of
perhaps ca. 163/4 AD, is also of this type. 3, of ca. 110-120 AD,
did not list the entire
ephebic year-class and seems to belong to one of the more informal
genres of monument
which named only a selection of the ephebes.4
1 is an outlier, both chronologically and in genre. Dating from the
late first century
BC, it consists of a list of Athenian citizens not organised by
tribe. It is included here as it
1 Discussed by de Lisle 2020. As far as UK Collections are
concerned, in addition to the ephebic
inscriptions of the Roman period published here and in AIUK 11
(Ashmolean), two dedications
which certainly or possibly relate to the ephebate at this period
will be included in AIUK 4.5 (BM,
Dedications): IG II3 4, 401, of the 1st cent. BC, dedicated by an
ephebic gymnasiarch or a holder of
the adult office of that description; and IG II3 4, 423, of the 2nd
cent. AD, dedicated to Hermes and
Herakles by the victor in a torch-race, most likely ephebic. From
the 4th century BC AIUK 4.5 will
include IG II3 4, 331 and 349. 2 City officials responsible for
ephebate: de Lisle 2020, sect. 2.1; permanent staff: sect. 2.2.
In
addition the ephebes themselves might fulfil roles as cadet
officials and liturgists (sect. 2.3). None
of these cadet roles are mentioned in this set of inscriptions, but
4 col. 1 seems to be from a list of
ephebic liturgists. 3 On this genre of ephebic catalogue see de
Lisle 2020, sect. 1.3. 4 On these more selective lists see de Lisle
2020, sect. 1.2, 1.4, 1.5.
2
has points in common with lists of ephebes who made dedications at
this period, and was
categorised by Hicks as ephebic, but it may well in fact be another
type of list.
2. Collection history
Though conclusive proof of the original location of the ephebic
inscriptions of the Roman
period is mostly lacking, it is generally assumed that they were
erected in the area of the
Diogeneion, the ephebic headquarters at this period, in the likely
area of which, i.e. in the
lower city north-east of the Acropolis, near the church of St.
Demetrios Katephores, many
of them were found.5
The findspot of the most substantial item in this set, the shield
monument, 5 a, has
not previously been clear from the scholarly literature;6 but
Robert Pitt, in his forthcoming
study of Anthony Askew (1722-1774),7 a physician and collector of
classical books and
manuscripts, shows that it was first recorded by the Abbé Fourmont
in 1729 in the church
of Stauromenos,8 where it was still located when it was recorded
and acquired by Askew
at the end of 1747 or the very beginning of 1748.9 Askew’s visit to
Athens took place
towards the end of a European tour on which he had embarked in
1746, and which had
included visits, in 1747, to Constantinople and to Mt. Athos. He
wrote an important
account of the inscriptions he encountered in Athens and the
Islands, which he completed
while in quarantine on Malta in early 1748, arriving back in
England the same year.10
The church at which both Fourmont and Askew saw the shield monument
is
probably identifiable as Biris 1940, no. 45, at the corner of
Thoukydidou and Nikodemou
Streets, i.e. about 150 metres east of the church of St. Demetrios
Katephores. This was a
relatively large church, noted by more early travellers and map
makers than the smaller
church of Stauromenos, Biris no. 109, located at the corner of
Panos and Aretousas
5 On this location, at the junction of Kyrristou and Erechtheos
streets, see AIUK 4.2, pp. 3-4; de
Lisle 2020, sect. 0.1 (with further bibliography and catalogue of
findspots, sect. 5. Particularly
fruitful were the excavations in this area conducted by the Greek
Archaeological Society in 1861-
1863 under the Directorship of Stephanos A. Koumanoudes, which
yielded quantities of ephebic
inscriptions and portrait heads of ephebic superintendents). The
church was close to the post-
Herulian wall, which had been constructed with materials from the
locality, including many
inscriptions. On the location of the Diogeneion see also Sourlas
2015, 311-14. 6 Pitt informs me that it is unclear from Askew’s
manuscripts what basis there is for the claim of
Combe 1815, vol. 2, pl. 36, cited by Hicks, GIBM I, no. 44, that
Askew “was informed by the
people of the place that it had been removed from the Parthenon.”
Cf. Boeckh ad CIG I 284, “olim
ad Parthenonem fuerat”. 7 Pitt forthcoming. I am indebted to him
for what follows. See also the summary of Askew’s
activities in the introduction to the forthcoming AIUK 4.6 (BM,
Funerary Monuments). 8 “Trouvée dans l’Eglise de σταυρομνης”
(Fourmont). Bibl. nat. Paris, Suppl. grec. 854, f. 126
no. 252. For Fourmont’s visit to Athens in 1729 see Stoneman 1985,
191-92. I am grateful to Pitt
for showing me a facsimile of the relevant pages of Fourmont’s
manuscript. 9 “Found upon the ground in the ruined church of St.
Stauromeno” (Askew). British Library,
Burney MS 402, f. 47r-48r/46v, as reported by Pitt forthcoming, no.
123. The date of Askew’s
arrival in Athens (no later than 23rd September 1747) is attested
in his notebook at Emmanuel
College, Cambridge (MS 47); cf. Stubbings 1976. 10 Pitt
forthcoming, publishing British Library, Burney MS 402.
3
(formerly Michael), about 200 metres south-west of St. Demetrios
Katephores, under the
north side of the Acropolis. Interestingly, although the shield had
been removed from its
surrounding frame by the time it was seen by Fourmont and Askew, it
is otherwise in an
excellent state of preservation and, unlike the two small fragments
from the shield-frame,
5 b and c, it shows no sign of significant weathering or of re-use,
e.g. in the construction
of the post-Herulian Wall. Shorn of its rectangular frame, and with
its rim neatly cut
down, it would seem to have been preserved under cover (on display
in the church?). In
any case, the small fr. b of 5 was duly found in the area of St.
Demetrios Katephores; and
that was also the findspot of the other extant full ephebic
catalogue in the shape of a
shield, IG II2 2051.11
3 was not previously known to have been recorded prior to its
removal to England
by Lord Elgin, but Pitt has discovered that it was documented by
Askew in 1747/8 “in the
English consul’s house at Athens”. Pitt has also established that
this consul was most
likely Nicholas Logothetis and the house in question was between
the Library of Hadrian
and the Stoa of Attalos, to the south of Monastiraki square, again
a location close to the
church of St. Demetrios Katephores.12 In addition to 3, 1 b and 2
were acquired in Athens
in the years after 1801 by Lord Elgin, or by his agents,
principally Giovanni Battista
Lusieri, and were among the objects purchased by Parliament and
transferred to the
British Museum in 1816.13 As with nearly all the inscriptions
collected by Elgin, there is
no record of findspots. Most likely, as apparently with many of
Elgin’s inscriptions, 1 b
and 2, as well as 3, were obtained from locations in the lower city
rather than in Lusieri’s
operations on the Acropolis.14 The other surviving fragment of 1
(fr. a) also has no
recorded findspot, and given that it is not only of uncertain
genre, but also dates
considerably earlier than 2-5, the original location of this
inscription is as obscure as the
circumstances of its discovery.
On Askew’s death his extensive collections were sold at an auction,
the sales
catalogue of which survives,15 and includes at the end two
inscriptions, 5 a and the
11 Cf. the commentary on 5. A third ephebic catalogue in the shape
of a shield, inscribed with the
names of members of the ephebic team, Theseidai, of 175/6 AD (?),
Sourlas 2015, was found in
2008 during the restoration of the house of the Venizelos family at
96 Hadrianou Street, originally
constructed perhaps in the first half of the 18th century. This is
close to the church of Stauromenos
at the corner of Thoukydidou and Nikodemou Streets, Biris 1940, no.
45, which perhaps supports
the idea that it was at that church that Fourmont and Askew
recorded 5. In this case the monument
has been cut down for secondary use. 12 Pitt forthcoming, no. 9. 13
Cf. AIUK 4.1, pp. 1-4; AIUK 4.2, pp. 1-4. On the activities of
Lusieri see Poulou 2016. 14 For Elgin’s acquisitions in the lower
city see AIUK 4.1, pp. 2-3; AIUK 4.2, pp. 1-3. Many
further examples will be given in other parts of AIUK 4. One may
speculate that Elgin’s agents
obtained 3 directly from the Spyridon Logothetis who, in the early
19th century, was consul in
succession to the consul of Askew’s time, and collaborated with
Elgin and his team (“Logothetes”,
strictly an official title, was used in Athens at this period
specifically in reference to members of
the Chromatianos family who also held British consular
appointments, St. Clair 1998, 351 n. 1).
Philip Hunt, Elgin’s chaplain, lodged with Logothetis in 1801 (St.
Clair 1998, 91) and Logothetis
is recorded as having made Elgin a present of antiquities that had
been lying in his yard for many
years (St. Clair 1998, 100). 15 Biblioteca Askeviana (1775).
4
funerary relief stele for Xanthippos (now BM 1805.0703.183).16 They
were acquired at
the auction by Lyde Browne, a Governor of the Bank of England, who
in the same year,
1775, sold them to Charles Townley. Townley (1737-1805) was
responsible for one of the
most influential collections of Greek and Roman antiquities to come
to the Museum
before Elgin’s.17 He collected mainly in Italy, turning his London
home on Park Street
into a well-known gallery. After Townley’s death the British Museum
acquired his
collection in two groups, in 1805 and 1814, to the first of which
belonged 5 a and the
Xanthippos stele.18
We are in the dark about the findspot of 4. When it was first
published by Boeckh,
in the Addenda to CIG I (p. 911, 305b), it was already in London in
the collection of the
sixth Viscount Strangford, who had taken the opportunity of a term
as British Ambassador
in Constantinople in 1820-1824 to acquire a collection of
antiquities.19 Strangford died in
1855 and in 1864 the Museum acquired part of his collection from
his son, the eighth
Viscount.20
3. Lettering and other graphic features
The style of lettering on 1, of ca. 125 BC, displays in modest form
the apices or serifs
(which later included hyperextended right diagonals on Α/Δ/Λ) that
are characteristic of
Attic inscriptions from the later Hellenistic period onwards, but
not the split-bar alphas ()
that appear on some public inscriptions from around the mid-second
century BC.21 Split-
bar alphas () do, however, appear on 2, of ca. 80 AD, sporadically
on 3, of 110-120 AD,
and 4, of ca. 163/4 AD?, but have fallen out of use again on 5, of
194/5 AD. None of the
inscriptions is cut stoichedon; the style had gone out of fashion
in the Hellenistic period,22
There are, however, incised horizontal guidelines on 1.23 The major
development in
16 IG I3 1282 bis = IG II2 12332 = Clairmont, CAT 1.630. Obtained
by Askew from the Petraki
Monastery, which still exists, and in the grounds of which was
built much later the British School
at Athens. 17 Cook 1985. 18 See the introduction to the forthcoming
AIUK 4.6 (BM, Funerary Monuments). 19 Boeckh’s edition was based on
a transcript made in London by the Danish diplomat, Brønsted.
Cf. AIUK 4.2, pp. 4-5. On Strangford see also other, forthcoming,
parts of AIUK 4 and AIUK 13
(Mount Stewart). 20 Conze 1864, 163-65, is an account of an
exhibition, opened in the British Museum the previous
September, of sculpture and inscriptions from the Strangford
collection (on 4 see p. 165). One
wonders whether 4 had a similar provenance to Strangford’s fragment
(b) of the post-Sullan
decree honouring ephebes, AIUK 4.2 no. 16, which, before it was
acquired by him, was recorded
(in 1816) in a private house not far from the church of St.
Demetrios Katephores (house of
Stamataki-Hadgi, see AIUK 4.2, p. 4). 21 For a summary of the key
features of the lettering of Attic inscriptions of the period
229-86 BC
see Tracy 1990, 238-39. 22 Threatte I, 60-64. 23 Cf. Threatte I, 62
+ Add. p. 647.
5
lettering of the Roman period, however, is the introduction of
cursive letter forms.24 They
are entirely absent in 2, in the otherwise slightly florid
lettering on 3, and 4, but do creep
into 5, where , , and appear alongside non-cursive forms. 3, 4 and
5 also illustrate
two other common abbreviatory features of inscribed name catalogues
and other
inscriptions of the Roman period, the use of to indicate a man with
the same name as
his father (3, 4, 5),25 and the sign / to indicate an abbreviation,
usually, but not always, of a
name element (3, 5).26 5 also uses some ligatures and compendia and
sometimes inscribes
the last letter of an abbreviated name in a smaller superscript
form;27 and it also deploys a
decorative sign, J, to mark off the division of the catalogue into
different tribes.28 5 also
contains the only passage of prose in these inscriptions (ll.
128-138), the most notable
feature of which is perhaps the absence of the iota adscripts in
dative singulars which had
characterised the epigraphic writing of an earlier period, but
which are somewhat unusual
(and perhaps deliberately old-fashioned) in those relatively few
cases in which they are
retained in inscriptions of the second and third centuries
AD.29
24 On these see AIUK 4.2 no. 17 with commentary. Cf. Sironen 1997,
appendix 1 (based on
analysis of cursive lettering from 270 AD onwards; we lack
up-to-date systematic analysis of this
kind for pre-Herulian Athens). 25 Used extensively from the 1st
century BC onwards, Threatte I, 105-6. 26 Used with abbreviations
after 100 AD, Threatte I, 104. 27 Cf. Threatte I, 107-110. 28 The
special signs mentioned here are rendered somewhat schematically in
this edition. For their
precise shape and position, and the precise character of the
ligatures and compendia, see the
photographs. 29 Cf. Threatte I, 362. A case later than 5 in which
the iota adscript is mostly retained is AIUK 4.2
no. 17, of ca. 220 AD.
2. THE INSCRIPTIONS
1 CATALOGUE OF NAMES. EM 8692 (a), BM 1816,0610.285 (b). Two
non-joining
fragments of a stele (?) of white marble, associated by Tracy.
Findspots not recorded (b
Elgin collection, cf. sect. 1.2). a left side preserved?, b broken
on all sides (the finished
top on b relates to secondary use). a h. 0.11, w. 0.20, th. 0.12; b
h. 0.195, w. 0.20, th. 0.14.
L. h. 0.006. Modest apices/serifs. No . Letters inscribed within
incised horizontal
guidelines. Cutter: “unfamiliar/school of FD III 2, no. 24, 138-127
BC” (Tracy).
Eds. a IG II 5, 1048c; IG II2 2450; b CIG I 295 (from Osann and
Rose)*; Hicks,
GIBM I no. 45; IG III 1235; IG II2 2272; a + b Tracy 1990, 245-46
(SEG 40.173).
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
a [Δημ]τριος [- - - - -] []ρστων πι[- - -] Δωρθεος Δωρο[θου - - -]
Σωτλης Νικοδ[μου καλθεν?]
5 Θεμιστοκλς Α[- - - -] []γαθοκλς σωπ[- - -] [Θρα]συκλς πολλω[- - -
-]
b [- -c.12- -]| . . ΝΙ . . . ΟΙ[- -?] [- -c.12- -]ρου Σουνιες,
γν[ωι ]-
10 [- -c.12- -]νδρου ωνδης πο[λλων?](ου) [- -c.12- -]ος
λωπεκθεν
[- -c.9- -]τρδου Παλληνες [- -c.9- -]|ιαου λαιες [- -c.6- πο]λλωνου
ρικεες
15 [- -c.9- -]ρος ρτεμιδρου Σουνιες [- -c.10- -]νος Κολωνθεν 25
Χαρτω[ν]
[- -c.10- -] Φρυνσκου Σφττιος λυμπι[οδ]- [- -c.8- - χ]εσθνου
Κειριδης ρου [- -c.11- -]οκλους Θορκιος Κοθωκ[δης]
20 [- -c.11- -] Διονυσου φιστιδης [- -c.12- -]νος Σουνιες
[- - - c.17- - -]ου Βατθεν [- - - c.19?- - - Στ]ειριες [- - - - -
c.26?- - - - -]τος [- -?] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ?
7
Tracy identified these two fragments as from the same inscription
on the basis of the lettering,
vertical spacing and the presence of incised guidelines. The exact
spatial relationship of the two
fragments is uncertain. Indications of numbers of letters to be
restored to the left in fr. b are based
on the uncertain restorations of ll. 14, 17 and 18, and are
approximate. Here and there the cutter
made corrections to individual letters without erasure. 1-7 Rest.
Koehler (IG II), 4 Lambert, cf. Σωτλης | Νικοδμου | καλθεν on the
unpublished funerary columella of ii BC from the
Agora noted by Traill PAA 867970 || 8 ΚΙ . . . ΟΙ eds. || 9-10
Tracy, who noted that the text at the
end of 9 and 10 has been crowded into the margin in slightly
smaller lettering by a later cutter.
“The two lines are to be taken together and identify the natural
father of the man in l. 9.” || 9
Tracy. One might expect γν[ωι δ, but cf. F. Delphes III 2 no. 8 l.
7. || 13 -ναου eds. || 14
[γνωρ?] Tracy, see below || 17 [Καλλστρατος?] Tracy after Kirchner
(IG II2), see below || 18
[χεσθνης?] Tracy, see below || 24 E.g. ρχον]τος, παιδοτριβον]τος or
part of a name,
Lambert; ΤΟΓ eds. || 23, 25-28 Hicks. 25-28 “are crowded into the
right margin by the same
cutter who made the additions at lines 2 and 3” (Tracy).
a . . .
Demetrios . . .
Soteles son of Nikod[emos of Hekale?]
5 Themistokles son of A- . . .
Agathokles son of Asop- . . .
Thrasykles son of Apollo- . . .
b - son of - of - ?
- son of -ros of Sounion, by birth son of Apo[llonios?]
10 - son of -andros of Ionidai
- son of - of Alopeke
- son of [Apo]llonios of Erikeia
15 -ros son of Artemidoros of Sounion
- son of -on of Kolonai 25 Chariton
- son of Phryniskos of Sphettos son of Olympiodo-
- son of [Ech]esthenes of Keiriadai ros
- son of -okles of Thorikos of Kothokidai
20 - son of Dionysios of Iphistiadai
- son of -on of Sounion
- son of - of Bate
- son of - of Steiria
Fig. 1. 1 b © Trustees of the British Museum.
Hicks identified b as an ephebic list “not earlier than the second
century AD”, but
Kirchner (IG II2) recognised that it was much earlier and voiced
uncertainty about its
categorisation. Tracy, in associating b with a, confirmed a date of
ca. 125 BC on the basis
of lettering and prosopography, but did not venture an opinion on
the categorisation of the
monument. The absence of tribal organisation rules out certain
types of official list, e.g.
the catalogues of councillors appended to prytany inscriptions or
of ephebes appended to
decrees honouring ephebes.30 On the other hand the systematic
inclusion of patronymics
and demotics suggests a public context of some kind, for example a
list of contributors to
a public project. There are some similarities to the dedications of
the second century BC to
Hermes by groups of ephebes (with patronymics and demotics) with
their physical trainer,
found in the Piraeus and the Agora, all or mostly on bases, IG II3
4, 357-364, and the
30 For examples of this type of inscription in the British Museum’s
collection see AIUK 4.2 no. 15
(prytany), no. 16 (ephebes).
9
dedications mostly to the Muses by pre-ephebes (mellepheboi) of the
late-second and early
first century BC, also all found in the Piraeus and the Agora area,
IG II3 4, 367 (stele, ca.
120 BC), 370 (base, 100-60 BC), 373 (stele, Piraeus, 95/4 BC) 374
(base, Piraeus, 94/3
BC?).31 If they are ephebes, the fact that all those listed appear
to be Athenian citizens
might suggest that the inscription pre-dates the opening of the
ephebate to foreigners by at
the latest 123/2 BC, though foreigners might also have been listed
elsewhere on the
stone.32 On the other hand, the number of men listed on our
inscription was probably
rather greater than on these ephebic dedications; and our
inscription more closely
resembles IG II2 2452, a catalogue of prominent men of the same
period, also listed with
patronymics and demotics, but not in tribal order. It too has names
added at different
times, but it is not ephebic.33 The character of our catalogue must
be left open.
Apart from Soteles (l. 4, see above, app. crit.), the following men
on the list are
identifiable:
9-10. The natural father of this man may be the [Apollonios?] son
of Apollonios of
Sounion who was prytany treasurer in 131/0 BC (Agora XV 246 + 232 =
SEG 28.88, ll.
39, 45) and/or the Apollonios son of Apollonios of Sounion who was
superintendent
(kosmetes) of ephebes in 128/7 BC (SEG 15.104, ll. 49, 61 etc., FD
III 2, 24, l. 9). It
became common on inscriptions in the second century BC for adopted
children to indicate
their natural parent. As persuasively elucidated by Rubinstein et
al. 1991, this practice was
probably a consequence of the relaxation of Pericles’ citizenship
law. Now that it was no
longer necessary for the citizen to be of citizen descent on both
sides, “genuine”
citizenship descent was something the office-holding elite wished,
or needed, to advertise
explicitly.34 It is interesting that, in this case, the natural
parent was added as an
afterthought. This might suggest status consciousness in a general
way, though if these
were ephebes it might be explained more specifically by the desire
to flag up that this
ephebe was the natural son of an ephebic kosmetes, albeit not, it
seems, in the same year.35
14. Identified by Perrin 2007, 411 (stemma) as the Agenor son of
Apollonios of Erikeia
who was a kithara-player and pythaist (official pilgrim to Delphi)
in 138/7 BC (FD III 2,
47, l. 23). Might alternatively be a brother.
31 It is quite possible that our fragments were from a stele, but
it cannot be ruled out that they were
cut down from a base. 32 Foreigners are first attested in the
ephebate in Perrin 2007, 206-17, T26 (IG II2 1006 + SEG
38.114, archon Demetrios, 123/2 BC). At 250-53, however, Perrin
notes that this development
may in fact have taken place rather earlier. Cf. AIUK 4.2 no. 16
with commentary. 33 It was cut by multiple hands, see Tracy 1990,
17, 214-15 etc. 34 Cf. AIUK 3 (Fitzwilliam Museum), pp. 57-58, n.
144. 35 The names on this list do not correspond with the ephebes
listed on SEG 15.104. On the
tendency for the epigraphical record to emphasise connections
between kosmetai and their ephebe-
or ephebic-officer-sons, cf. e.g. IG II2 2017, 19, with de Lisle
2020, sect. 1.3; IG II2 3750, 3762,
3769, with de Lisle 2020, sect. 1.4; de Lisle 2020, sect. 2.1,
sect. 3.8; Perrin 2013, 163-65; 5
below. This phenomenon generally applies, however, to fathers and
sons serving in the same year.
10
17. Perhaps the [Kallis?]tratos son of Phryniskos of Sphettos on
the list of prominent men
ca. 100 BC (?), IG II2 2452, l. 8.
18. Perhaps (if our list is not ephebic) identical with the
Echesthenes of Keiriadai who was
councillor in 135/4 BC (Agora XV 243, l. 69), or a son of the same,
or, as Tracy notes,
identical with (or grandson of?) the Kallisthenes son of
Echesthenes of Keiriadai who was
epimeletes of the Piraeus ca. 140 BC (IG II2 1939, l. 59).
25-28. If our list is not ephebic, perhaps father of the
Olympiodoros son of Chariton (no
demotic) who is known from an inscription from Delphi as an ephebe
in 106/5 BC, FD III
2, 25, l. 13, col. 3.
2. The Inscriptions
2 EPHEBIC MONUMENT. BM 1816,0610.335. Elgin collection (cf. sect.
1.2).
Fragment of a stele of white marble, broken on all sides (the
apparently preserved left side
is not original) and back. H. 0.21, w. 0.20, th. 0.09. L. h. 0.008.
No cursive forms, ,
modest apices/serifs. To the right of the inscription in relief a
standing male figure, in
profile facing to the right, wrapped in a chalmys, with right arm
raised, head and feet
missing.
Eds. CIG I 280 (from Osann and Müller)*; Hicks, GIBM I no. 43; (IG
III 1086);
IG II2 1993; Wilson 1992, E.119. Autopsy Lambert 2019. In store.
Fig. 2.1. ca. 80 AD
- - - - - - - - | [γραμματ]ες [θη]νων [Δη]μητρου
5 Φαληρες. γεμν Διονυσδωρος Διονυσου ναφλστιος. Relief
10 πλομχος Σ[σ]τρατος Ν[ικο]υ [Παλλην]ες. [κεστρο]φλαξ
15 . . .5. . νης . . .5. . ες - - - - - -
Rest. Hicks. 2. 3. 12. 13 Dittenberger (IG III). I have made minor
adjustments to dots and square
brackets from autopsy.
. . .
Fig. 2.1. 2 Photograph: J. R. T. Lambert. © Trustees of the British
Museum
This is a fragment of an ephebic catalogue of the Roman period. It
belongs in the second
half of the first century AD, a period when the monuments set up by
informal groups of
ephebic friends (philoi) were transitioning into the more official
monuments normally set
up under the aegis of the overall ephebic superintendent, the
kosmetes, with a full
catalogue of the year’s ephebes and their adult staff.36 That our
fragment belongs to the
latter category may be implied by the figure in relief to the right
of the fragment, for he is
36 On these categories see de Lisle 2020, sect. 1.2 (philoi lists),
1.3 (ephebic catalogues).
13
very similar to the figure located to the right of a list of
ephebic sophronistai on IG II2
2044, an ephebic catalogue of 139/40 AD (archon Flavius Alkibiades
of Paiania) (Fig.
2.2).37
Fig. 2.2. Relief panel depicting the crowning of a kosmetes,
National Archaeological Museum,
Sculpture Collection, no. 1484 (IG II2 2044). Photograph: C. de
Lisle. The rights on the depicted
monument belong to the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and
Sports/Archaeological Resources Fund
(Law 3028/2002).
The figure depicted there, identifiable as an ephebe, holds in his
extended right hand a
crown which he places on the head of an adult male figure, facing
the viewer, representing
the kosmetes. The composition is balanced by another ephebe to the
right of the kosmetes,
this one depicted frontally, naked, his chlamys slung behind him
around his shoulders,
also crowning the kosmetes. The figures are located within the
framed relief panel at the
top of the stele, with adult ephebic officials (sophronistai)
listed to the left and ephebic
staff (paidotribes, hoplomachos and hegemon) to the right on the
relief ground, and
37 See also the photograph of the complete stele in Kaltsas 2002,
p. 336 , no. 710. The quality of
the relief is higher on our piece, with more detailed carving of
the drapery, but the dress, general
appearance and attitude of the figure with raised arm is the same.
Similar motifs appear on IG II2
2017 (catalogue, 109/10 AD; photo at Perrin 2013, 175), 2018
(philoi list, ca. 120 AD), NM 1468
(uninscribed/erased catalogue, ca. 120-140 AD, ph. Kaltsas, p. 337
no. 711), IG II2 2050
(catalogue, 143/4 AD), 2208 (catalogue, 214/5 or 215/6 AD, NM 1465,
ph. Kaltsas, p. 335 no.
709), but IG II2 2044 is the closest parallel.
14
inscriptions naming the emperor on the upper moulding of the frame,
and the kosmetes on
the lower moulding, the latter effectively labelling the figure
being crowned in the centre
of the relief. Below the relief panel on the main body of the stele
is the catalogue of the
ephebes. Probably our fragment belonged to a similar framed relief
panel. If so, it may be
from one of the three earliest known official ephebic catalogues.
The earliest of all is IG
II2 1990 of 61 AD and the second clear case IG II2 1996, of the
reign of Domitian (81-96
AD). For a later, fully preserved example of this genre of
monument, see 5. The following
ephebic staff are named:38
2-5. Athenion son of Demetrios of Phaleron, the secretary.39 Not
identifiable.40
7-9 Dionysodoros son of Dionysios of Anaphlystos, hegemon
(“leader”).41 He was also
hegemon at IG II2 1995, 5, suggesting a similar date for both
inscriptions. Dionysodoros
and Dionysios are both very common names, making it unclear whether
there are family
connections with other bearers of the names in Anaphlystos.42
10-13. Sostratos son of Nikias of Pallene, hoplomachos (“weapons
trainer”).43 Held the
same post at IG II2 1994, 4. He is identifiable as son of Nikias
son of Antigonos of
Pallene, pyloros in 36/7 AD44 and himself hoplomachos 41-54 AD.45
This suggests a date
of ca. 80 AD for our inscription, 1994 and 1995. Connections with
other men of Pallene
with these names are possible, but uncertain.46
38 On the adult ephebic staff at this period see de Lisle 2020,
sect. 2.2. 39 Cf. 5, 161-162. There the secretary was a permanent
staff member. Athenion is only attested in
this post on this inscription. It is unlikely on chronological
grounds that he was the Athenion of
Phaleron (Traill, PAA 110625) who was periegetes (official guide)
for life and is known from the
two monuments commemorating his daughter Kekropia’s son, P. Aelius
Phaidros of Sounion, who
died aged 20 in ca. 172-178 AD (see Byrne, RCA p. 24), and Byrne in
the Athenian Onomasticon
prudently declines to make the identification. 40 The naming of
Athenion’s father for Demetrios of Phaleron, the well-known ruler
of Athens
317-307 BC, might not be coincidental. Given that the name was so
common, however, Davies,
prudently hesitates to attach significance to its later occurrence
in Phaleron (APF pp. 109-10). 41 The precise duties of this ephebic
staff member at Athens are unknown. In Hellenistic Beroia he
was responsible for keeping the ephebes in order and organising the
gymnasium’s schedule. See
de Lisle 2020, sect. 2.2. 42 The Dionysioi of Anaphlystos attested
in the Hellenistic period include an ephebe in 80/79 BC,
son of Sarapion of Anaphlystos, AIO 1798, l. 187. Note also
Dionysodoros son of Zosimos of
Anaphlystos who was councillor in 169/70 (Agora XV 380, 30) and
again in 195/6 AD (Agora XV
425, 20). 43 Cf. de Lisle 2020, sect. 2.2 and below, commentary on
5. 44 IG II2 2292, 31. 45 IG II2 1973 (= AIUK 11 [Ashmolean], no.
5), 5; 1974, 10; Traill, PAA 712660. It was not
uncommon for ephebic staff positions to be held by different
generations of the same family. 46 Sostratos son of Sostratos of
Pallene, thesmothetes in early-i AD (IG II2 1729, 7) may have
been
a relation. Traill, PAA notes the possible identity of Nikias of
Pallene, father of our hoplomachos
(PAA 712655), with the man of that name who was councillor in i AD
(PAA 712640, Agora XV
309, 42), the Nikias father of Moschion of Pallene, councillor ca.
138/9 AD (PAA 712645, Agora
15
14-16. This man was the kestrophylax, trainer in the use of the
kestros, a missile fired
from a sling.47 This is the earliest reference to a trainer of this
description. One next
appears in IG II2 2030, ll. 38-39 (100/101 AD). He was apparently
designated by ethnic
only, without patronymic, indicating that, as commonly with this
trainer, he was not an
Athenian.
XV 333, 40, for the date see Athenian Onomasticon), and the Nikias
father of Artemon of Pallene,
ephebic hegemon ca. 61/2 AD (PAA 712650, IG II2 1990, 11, date
Athenian Onomasticon). 47 See de Lisle 2020, sect. 2.2 and below 5,
163-164, with commentary.
16
3 EPHEBIC MONUMENT. BM 1816,0610.162. Recorded by Askew in late
1747 or
early 1748 in Athens at the house of the English consul while still
in one piece, later
acquired by Elgin (cf. sect. 1.2). Two joining fragments (see
below) of white marble,
broken on all sides (back now encased in plaster). Wilson suggests
that the right side,
though worn, may be original (“The kink in the lower part of that
side, just opposite 1.15
supports this. Many stelae are cut away sharply in this manner near
the bottom of the
stone.”) H. 0.25, w. 0.24, th. 0.125. L. h. 0.006. No cursive
forms. Modest apices and
slightly hyperextended right diagonals on Α/Δ/Λ, some , phi = two
circles on either side
of |. = son of man of same name, / used sporadically to indicate an
abbreviated demotic
or patronymic.
Eds. CIG I 303 (from Osann and Rose)*; Hicks, GIBM I no. 46; (IG
III 1099); IG
II2 2028; Wilson 1992, E.145; Pitt forthcoming, no. 9. Autopsy
Lambert 2019. In store.
Fig. 3.
Διογνη[ς Γαργ(ττιος)?] vac.
Καρπδωρος Διογνους Γαργ[(ττιος)] Φλων vvv Μελιτες πγονος
θμονες
5 Ζωλος λευθρου χαρν Εφημος Μελιτες Σωκρτης Κρου Βερενεικ /
Διονσιος Μενεκρτους Επυ /
σδωρος Φιλοξνου Κολ /
ρακλεδωρος Ζωλου ναφ ρακλεδης ντιχου αμ ρμας κ Μυρι /
15 ρων Κηφισ /
[ν]σιμος γενου Φιλαθναι[ο]ς π [σ]κληπιδης ρακ Λβανος Εκλ [Μ]λισσος
ττικ[ς] Ξενοφ [Χαρ?]των Ξενοφ / 25 πκτητος Διο /
20 [Ετ]υχδης μπο(ρικο?) vac. [Σωτ]ριχος ρακλε
vac.
It is apparent from Askew’s edition (for which see Pitt), that the
break of the stone into two
fragments took place after it was recorded by him. Letters read by
Askew that have been lost in the
break are underlined. I have also made minor adjustments to
readings from autopsy. Rest. Hicks. 3
Μ[ε]λιτες Wilson, ΜΕΛΙΠΕΥΣ Askew, [μαξ]αντες previous eds. || 5
ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΟΥ
17
Askew, λε[υσινο]υ eds. || 7 ΚΥΡΟΥ Askew, [] eds. || 20 μπο(ρικο)
Dittenberger (IG
III).
5 Zoilos son of Eleutheros of Acharnai
Euphemos son of same of Melite
Sokrates son of Kyros of Berenikidai
Dionysios son of Menekrates of Eupyridai
Isidoros son of Philoxenos of Kolonai or Kollytos
10 Sotas son of Euboulides of Piraeus
Zosimos son of Euboulides of Piraeus
Herakleodoros son of Zoilos of Anaphlystos
Herakleides son of Antiochos of Rhamnous
Hermias son of same of Myrrhinoutta
15 Hieron son of same of Kephisia
Onesimos son of Hygeinos Philathenaios son of Ep(-)
Asklepiades son of Herak(-) Libanos son of Eukl(-)
Melissos son of same Attikos son of Xenoph(-)
[Chari?]ton son of Xenophon 25 Epiktetos son of Dio(-).
20 Eutychides son of Empo(rikos?)
Soterichos son of Herakle(-)
This inscription is characteristic of ephebic catalogues in that it
first lists Athenian citizens
with patronymics and demotics (ll. 1-15), followed by non-citizens
with patronymics only
(ll. 16-25).48 Also typical is the listing of two pairs of brothers
(ll. 1, 2 and 10, 11). An
approximate date of 110-120 AD is indicated by Dionysios (l. 8),
who is son of the
Menekrates of Eupyridai, ephebic superintendent (kosmetes) on IG
II2 2026 (l. 4), of 115/6
or 116/7 AD, and brother of Poplios at l. 8 of that inscription. In
addition Karpodoros son
of Diogenes of Gargettos (l. 2) was father of three ephebes of
163/4 AD, Arisemos,
Zosimos and Alexis;49 and also father of Karpodoros, councillor ca.
188 AD.50 The lack of
tribal organisation of the citizen names and of a heading for the
foreigners, together with
the relatively small number of the latter, suggests that this is
not an official ephebic
catalogue listing the whole of the year class; but whether it is a
list of ephebic “friends”
(philoi) or belongs to some other category cannot be determined.51
Of the new names that
can now be read thanks to Pitt’s work on Askew’s manuscript, there
is no Eleutheros (l. 5)
48 For this pattern cf. 5, with commentary. 49 IG II2 2086, 53-55,
IG II2 2087, 18-20. 50 Agora XV 403 = SEG 32.192B, 7. 51 On the
categories of ephebic monument at this period see de Lisle 2020,
sects. 1.2-1.6.
18
otherwise attested in Acharnai, and no Kyros (l. 7) in Berenikidai.
As on 5 the absence of
ephebes with demonstrable connections to the elite is
notable.
Fig. 3. 3 © Trustees of the British Museum.
2. The Inscriptions
4 EPHEBIC MONUMENT. BM 1864,0220.101 (Strangford collection, cf.
sect. 1.2).
Fragment of white marble, broken on all sides. H. 0.125, w. 0.233,
th. 0.015. L. h. 1-6
0.009, 7-18 0.006. No cursive forms, almost no apices/serifs, but
some slightly
hyperextended right diagonals on Α/Δ/Λ, Φ with elongated vertical,
some . = son of
man of same name.
Eds. CIG I p. 911, 305b (from Brønsted); Le Bas and Waddington, no.
575; Hicks,
GIBM I no. 47; (IG III 1130); IG II2 2088; Wilson 1992,
E.213.
Cf. Conze 1864, 165. Autopsy Lambert 2019. In store. Fig. 4.
ca. 163/4 AD ?
- - Παλ σκληπιδοτος Σωσιστ[ρτου - - ?] - - - ΓΑ v Η 10
ΚεκροπδοςIX
- - ς Χολαργε ) Μυστικς λευσεινου vac. ? - - δος Σφτ φροδσιος
ρτεμιδρ vac.
5 - - ρου ντ Διονσιος ρτεμιδρ vac. [σωφρον?]ιστς Διονσιος vac.
πιε[ικδης] - - - - - - - - - 15 παφρδιτος Νφοντο[ς - -?]
πποθεωντδο[ς]X
[-ca. 4-5-]τεδης Φιλιστεδ[ου Πειραιες?] 12τμου - - -
Rest. Dittenberger (IG III). If normal tribal order was maintained,
the names in ll. 7-9 will have
belonged to OineisVIII. H in 2 and Ε in 3 are in smaller letters,
like col. 2, and were perhaps added
later. 2 -ς Γα<ργ>(ττιος) Dittenberger || 3 Χολαργε Kirchner
(IG II2), but the curved line
after the demotic was perhaps added at the same time as the final
epsilon and intended to divide it
from the letters of col. 2 || 17 [Φιλισ]τεδης Dittenberger; perhaps
rather [ρισ]τεδης (see
below).
. . . of Gargettos ? 10 KekropisIX
. . . son of - of Sphettos Aphrodisios son of Artemidoros
5 . . . son of -oros of Ant(inoeis) Dionysios son of
Artemidoros
[controller?] Dionysios son of same of Epieikidai
HippothontisX
- son of -timos of -
Fig. 4. 4 © Trustees of the British Museum.
The character of this fragment suggests that it is part of an
ephebic monument, with the
cadet gymnasiarchs and/or agonothetai listed in larger letters in
col. 152 and part of a
catalogue of the ephebes by tribe in col. 2. Note the presence of
two brothers (ll. 12-13),
as commonly in ephebic lists. IG II2 2086, an ephebic catalogue of
163/4 AD, also lists
five ephebes from Kekropis (ll. 152-157), and generally in lists
containing the complete
year-class Kekropis supplies between five and ten ephebes. It would
seem, therefore, that
this fragment was from the official ephebic catalogue for the year.
There is one apparent
anomaly, which indirectly helps to confirm this interpretation. In
an ephebic context at
this period [σωφρον]ιστς (or possibly [ποσωφρον]ιστς) would seem
the only
plausible restoration of l. 6, i.e. one of the ephebic controllers
subordinate to the
kosmetes.53 On the ephebic catalogues the sophronistai are usually
named in the plural,54
whereas a single sophronistes or hyposophronistes is named in
contexts where (non-tribe
52 On these cadet roles in ephebic catalogues see de Lisle 2020,
sect. 2.3. 53 See de Lisle 2020, sect. 2.1, and commentary on 5. 54
E.g. IG II2 2044, l. 2; 2054, l. 5; 2067, l. 9, etc.
based) competitive teams (systremmata) are commemorated, most
clearly in the
systremma catalogue IG II2 2055, 19-21 (145/6 AD).55 However, when
no ephebe was
available to fill a cadet role as gymnasiarch or agonothetes, one
of the elected (adult)
ephebic officials would step in to fill the gap, and when they did
so, they were listed with
their title.56 Most likely, as suggested to me by de Lisle, this
accounts for the presence of a
singular sophronistes in our col. 1: he had stepped in to fill a
gap in the roster of cadet
gymnasiarchs/agonothetai.
The presence of the demotic of Antinoeis (l. 5) guarantees a
post-Hadrianic date,
and the ephebe of Hippothontis listed in l. 17, [-ca. 4-5-]τεδης
Φιλιστεδ[ου Πειραιες?], enables the date tentatively to be narrowed
down further. Dittenberger identified him as a
homonymous son of the Philistides of Piraeus who was archon in
163/4 AD, IG II2 2086,
3 and 2087, 4.57 However, homonymous father-son pairs are normally
indicated by , so
it is more likely that this was a different (second?) son of
Philisteides. A candidate lies to
hand in []ριστδης Φιλ- | Πιραιες on the funerary monument in the
Piraeus museum,
IG II2 7150, dated by Kirchner to the second century AD.58 A degree
of caution is in
order. It is not certain, for example, that our ephebe was from
Piraeus; but if the
identification of our ephebe as a son of the archon of 163/4 AD is
correct, this would
suggest a date for this monument not far from the year of his
father’s archonship, 163/4
AD, though it cannot actually be that year, given the lack of
overlap with the names in IG
II2 2086.
55 On ephebic systremmata see de Lisle 2020, sect. 1.5. 56 E.g. IG
II2 2067, ll. 216-218; 2097, ll. 40-41 (both antikosmetai). 57 Cf.
Byrne, RCA 509 with 528-29. 58 Kirchner records that this is a
stele with broken relief. It is not included in von Moock 1998.
The
archon of 163/4 AD does seem to have had an (older?) homonymous
son, identifiable as the
Philisteides of Piraeus who was archon ca. 194/5-200/1 AD (IG II2
2127, cf. Byrne, RCA 509 with
530). This Philisteides of Piraeus in turn had a son, (Aurelius)
Philistides of Piraeus, who was
ephebe in 195/6 AD (IG II2 2130, 48 and 52 = AIUK 11 [Ashmolean],
no. 10, 49 and 53, cf. Byrne,
RCA 530-31) and archon ca. 225 AD (IG II2 2109, cf. Byrne, RCA 510
with 529).
22
5 EPHEBIC MONUMENT. BM 1805,0703.232 (a), EM 8492 (b), EM 3891 (c).
Athens,
church of Stauromenos (a, Fourmont and Askew, cf. sect. 1.2),
church of St. Demetrios
Katephores (b), unknown findspot (c). Three fragments of a white
marble plaque in the
form of a framed shield, a preserving most of the circuit of the
shield, but with frame
removed, b the upper right corner of the frame and a small section
of the shield rim, c a
lower right section of the frame and a small section of the shield
rim. a diameter of shield
0.79, width of rim 0.06, th. 0.05 at edge, ca. 0.065 in centre of
shield; b h. 0.285, w. 0.16,
th. 0.064; c h. 0.21, w. 0.16, th. 0.063. L. h. 0.009. Neat
lettering (“wrote elegantly”,
Askew), no , mostly non-cursive forms, but with square-sided lunate
sigma, , in 29, 30,
35, 36, 58, 59, 80, 89, 94, fr. b, lunate sigma, , in 83, 84, 105,
fr. b, lunate epsilon, , in
57, 84, 94, fr. b, fr. c, in 84, fr. b, fr. c. Very few/slight
apices/serifs, but slightly
hyperextended right diagonals on Α/Δ/Λ, Φ with elongated vertical.
/ = abbreviation mark
(usually placed over the end of the abbreviated name), = son of man
of same name,
tribe names II-VIII preceded by J, which was not however used for
tribes I or IX-XIII.
Eds. a Combe 1815, vol. II, pl. 36*; CIG I 284* (from Fourmont); Le
Bas and
Waddington, no. 558; Hicks, GIBM I no. 44; (IG III 1165); IG II2
2191; b IG III 1166; IG
II2 2192; c IG II2 2131; a (epigram), b, c W. Peek, Epigraphica 19,
1957, 87-92 (ph.)
(SEG 18.55); a, b, c Wilson 1992, E.255.
Cf. Ellis 1846, vol. 2, 299-301 with Appendix; Follet 1976, 230;
Cook 1987, 24-25
(ph.); Byrne, RCA 532; Sourlas 2015, 322 (ph. of cast at Berkeley);
Pitt forthcoming, no.
123. Autopsy Lambert 2019. Gallery 78, Classical Inscriptions.
Figs. 5.1 and 5.2.
194/5 AD ? λκαμνους κοσμη- τεοντος φηβοι
ρεχθεδοςI
Αρ/ Δημτριος 40 Συμφρων Μελσ / 80 φροδεσιος Πρωτκτητος 5 στυχος Ζωπ
/ Μλισσος ατροκλς Διφαντος Διον Ζπυρος Λγος γαθπους Θρασβουλος
Ζωσιμιανς Σφ / Ελπιστος πποθοοντδοςX 125 τταλδοςXIII
Φανας Μυστικο Ξενοκλς νησ / Θεοφνης Φιλρωτος Πο Αλ Δφιλος ρακλεδης
45 J καμαντδοςVI 85 Φιλοκρτης Ππλιος Ταγε 10 J ΑγεδοςII Κρτων
Διφαντος Φιλ Μεγιστδωρος Νκων Ετυχ / Εκρτης Φιλ Κρπος Χρσανθος Σωσι
/ Θεοφνης ντικοσμητ δ ο- J ΛεωντδοςIV θναιος Εκ / φροδεσιος κ
χρησμην δι τ πελλς φροδ / 50 J δριανδοςVII 90 Επριστος 130 ν τ νμ
περ το- 15 Ετυχιανς φρο / Κλ/ Πρωταγρας ΑαντδοςXI του μηδν γεγρ-
σκληπιδης πο / J ΟνεδοςVIII Στφανος Τρο / φθαι, λλως τε κα Διοκλς
κα Τρφ / Εσδοτος Μλων τ υ χρησμην Λεωνδης Ζωσ / λξανδρος Ετ
Σεραπιακς Εκ ες τατην τν Ζσιμος 55 μμνιος 95 Φοβος Δορυφ / 135
πιμλιαν 20 σδοτος ρμ / Δφιλος φρο / Δορυφρος Μ/ Αρηλ Εφρσυνος ρμ /
Φαρνκης λευ / Κλα/ Γιος λκαμνει Λαμ-
23
J ΠτολεμαδοςV Μακρενος Φιλο γαθοκλς πτρε. Ττος φροδεσιος Φιλ Ζσιμος
γα Νικστρατος 60 ΚεκροπδοςIX 100 ρτεμδωρος Α 25 Τιμοκρτης Νικο /
πραστος θηνω Με / ντιωχδοςXII
Ζπυρος Νικο / Κλ/ Παυλενος Αλ Διονσιος Αρ/ Πνταινος Κλ/ ητορικς Κλα
Νυμφος μναιος Μητρ λιδωρος ρκ 105 Σλων ρκολ πνγραφοι 65 πνγραφοι
πνγραφοι Κλα νμαστος Περιγνης γν Ετχης Γα Μχιμος Σμφορος 30 Φιλνος
Μυστικ / γθων Πρμος 140 πολλνι Πανθων Νεικηφρος Εδ / Στ/ Ετυχιανς
Ζωσς Πρ / Πλτων φροδσιος ρμφιλος Εδ / ρ/ Δωσθεος 110 πικτς Εκαρπς
155 Εκαρπς Πομπ/ Μρων 70 Γα<ν>υμδης ττικων Ετυχς ρτεμς
λυ<μ>πικς Δαμς Ζνων Λων Θεδοτος 35 φροδεσιος Κρυμβος Πνος 145
Πωσφρος ρτεμδωρο<ς> Εσδοτος Διο/ ρακλεδης Νεκων Διονσιος
Σωτριχος
Βτρυς Εγνμων 115 Κλα Σωτηρων Ζπυρος vac.? Θασος 75 Νενθης ρτεμδωρ /
Μρκος Ζμρνος σδοτος Σωτριχος 149 Εφραντικς
vac. σδωρος Ζσιμος Κλ/ Ετχης Μρων Δημτρι<ο>ς θηνων παφρς 120
Κλα νσιμος vac. Ζμραγδος
On right rim of shield:
b a c
160 [- -]ορων πυ[-]φορoς λκς v αν ς νχμαχον πατρδ’ πλισσ[μενοι].
Upper right corner of frame:
b 161 [γραμμ]ατες [Στρτω]ν Κιθαρωνος vacat κε(στροφλαξ) [-]ασας v
Ζω[-] vacat Lower right side of frame:
c 165 ποπαιδo/(τρβης) Ετυχιανς Υ[/](ακνθου) πογραμ/(ματες) Πο Αλ/
νθος πυριτης
2. The Inscriptions
24
170 Πο Αλ/ Ζσιμος θυρωρς [Κ]λεο- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Ligatures/compendia: 2 ΗΒ 16 ΠΟ 126 ΠΟ 165 ΔΟ || 34 ΟΛΥΠΙΚΟΣ, 70
ΓΑΛΥ, 119 ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΣ, 158 ΑΡΤΕΜΙΔΩΡΟ stone || 69 ρ/ = ρ(ννιος)
Lambert after Wilson and
Boeckh (cf. Byrne, RCA 298), ρα(-) IG after Hicks || 135 πιμλειαν
eds. || 160 Letters
preserved on a are underlined. Peek showed that this was an elegiac
couplet, suggesting for the
first line e.g. [χρας or πολλκις μνσαντο δ’] ρων π[ργοις δ]ορς λκς,
“In the border
forts of the country they were mindful of the strength of their
spears”, or “Many times in the
border forts they were ...”; G. Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca 962, had
suggested εν]ορος λκς, rejected on metrical grounds by Peek, who
also considered τ]ορος λκς unlikely. However,
Wilson correctly detected a vertical mark to the left of ΟΡΟΣ well
below the line and
persuasively interpreted it as the bottom of a phi (or less likely
psi). || 164 [Μν]ασας or [Θρ]ασας Ζω[σ(μου)?] || 166 Wilson, cf. IG
II2 2130 = AIUK 11, no. 10, 32 etc.
Fig. 5.1. 5 a © Trustees of the British Museum.
a
ErechtheisI
Aur(elius) Demetrios 40 Sympheron son of Melis(sos) 80 Aphrodisios
son of same Protoktetos son of same
5 Isitychos son of Zopy(ros) Melissos son of same Iatrokles son of
same Diophantos son of Dion(-)
Zopyros son of same Logos son of same Agathopous Thrasyboulos son
of same
Zosimianos son of Soph(os) Euelpistos son of same HippothontisX 125
AttalisXIII
Phanias son of Mystikos Xenokles son of Onesi(mos) Theophanes son
of Phileros Pu(blius) Ael(ius) Diphilos
Herakleides son of same 45 AkamantisVI 85 Philokrates son of same
Poplios son of Tauge(tos)
10 AigeisII Kriton son of same Diophantos son of
Phil(okrates)
Megistodoros son of same Nikon son of Eutych(ides) Eukrates son of
Phil(okrates) I did not use a deputy
Karpos son of same Chrysanthos son of Sosi(-) Theophanes son of
same superintendent because
LeontisIV Athenaios son of Euk(-) Aphrodisios son of same 130
nothing is written
Apelles son of Aphrod(isios) 50 HadrianisVII 90 Euporistos in the
law about
15 Eutychianos son of Aphro Cl(audius) Protagoras AiantisXI this
and also because I used
(disios) OineisVIII Stephanos son of Tro(phimos) a son to
Asklepiades son of Apo(-) Isidotos son of same Milon son of same
exercise this
Diokles alias Tryph(on) Alexandros son of Eut(ych-?) Serapiakos son
of Euk(-) 135 responsibility,
Leonides son of Zosi(mos) 55 Ammonios son of same 95 Phoibos son of
Doryph(oros) M. Aurelius
Zosimos son of same Diphilos son of Aphro(disios) Doryphoros son of
same Alkamenes of
20 Isidotos son of Herm(-) Pharnakes son of Eleu(sinios?)
Cla(udius) Gaios Lamptrai
Euphrosynos son of Herm(-) Makrinos son of Philo(-) Agathokles son
of same
PtolemaisV Aphrodisios son of Phil(o-) Zosimos son of
Aga(thokles)
Titos son of same 60 KekropisIX 100 Artemidoros son of
A(gathokles?)
Nikostratos son of same Eperastos son of Athenion of Me(lite)
AntiochisXII
25 Timokrates son of Niko(stratos) Cl(audius) Paulinos Ael(ius)
Dionysios
Zopyros son of Niko(stratos) Cl(audius) Rhetorikos Cla(udius)
Nymphios
Aur(elius) Pantainos Hymenaios son of Metr(-) Heliodoros son of
Ark(olykos)
2. The Inscriptions
Additional enrollees Additional enrollees Additional
enrollees
Cla(udius) Onomastos Perigenes son of Hygin(os) Eutyches son of
Ga(-) Machimos Symphoros son of same
30 Philinos son of Mystikos Agathon son of same Primos son of same
140 Apolloni(os) Panthion
Nikephoros son of Eud(-) Sta(tius) Eutychianos Zosas son of Primos
Platon Aphrodisios
Hermophilos son of Eud(-) Her(ennius) Dositheos 110 Epiktas
Eukarpas 155 Eukarpas
Pomp(-) Maro 70 Ganymedes Attikion Eutychas Artemas
Olympikos Damas Zenon Leon Theodotos
35 Aphrodisios son of same Korymbos Pinos 145 P(h)osphoros
Artemidoros
Isidotos son of Dio(-) Herakleides Nikon Dionysios Soterichos
Botrys Eugnomon 115 Cla(udius) Soterion Zopyros
Thiasos 75 Neanthes Artemidor(os) Markos
Zmyrnos Isidotos Soterichos Euphrantikos
Maron Demetrios Athenion
On right rim of shield (fr. a + b + c)
160 . . . of the strength . . . | always armed for hand-to-hand
combat for the fatherland
Upper right corner of frame (fr. b)
161 secretary
Lower right side of frame (fr. c)
2. The Inscriptions
28
This is the latest and much the best preserved Athenian ephebic
monument in the British
Museum’s collection. It is an example of the catalogue in which
(usually) the kosmetes
(ephebic superintendent) officially commemorated the entire
graduating class of
ephebes.59 As we saw above, 2 of ca. 80 AD is perhaps from one of
the early examples,
but this type of catalogue is particularly well represented from
the mid-second to the mid-
third century AD. 4 seems to be from an example of ca. 160s AD.
AIUK 11 (Ashmolean),
no. 10 is the official catalogue of (probably) the year following
ours, 195/6 AD. The
monuments are usually in the form of a stele or plaque, but this is
one of two examples in
the shape of a shield, the other being IG II2 2051, of perhaps
144/5 AD.60 A third ephebic
monument in the shape of a shield, Sourlas 2015, dates between
these two (175/6 AD?).
Though comparable in form, it appears not to be a complete
catalogue of the year class, but a list of the “Theseidai”,
which
seems to be an ephebic team of some description, perhaps
specifically for the competition, Peri Alkes (“About
Strength”).61 Our monument seems to have been modelled on
these earlier examples. Indeed it was by comparison with IG
II2 2051 that Peek realised that our shield, as preserved, is
missing not only all but a small section of its rim, but also
its
quadrangular frame, which is present in IG II2 2051. He
identified IG II2 2192 as the top right corner of the frame (fr.
b)
and 2131 as from its lower right side (fr. c), both inscribed
with the names of ephebic staff. See the drawing fig. 5.2.
Confirmation that the association is correct is supplied by
the
fact that both these smaller fragments also contain part of
the
elegiac couplet inscribed on the right side of the shield’s
rim
and preserved also on fr. a.62
Fig. 5.2. Drawing of 5 b and c with right side of a. Reproduced,
with permission, from W. Peek,
Epigraphica 19, 1957, Tab. II no. 4, opposite p. 89.
The date of our monument is determined in the first place by the
titulature of the
secretary, Straton son of Kithairon (of Acharnai) (162). This man
is attested on ephebic
inscriptions from the 180s onwards as “secretary for life”, but
from 195/6 AD, the
59 Cf. sect. 1.1. 60 EM 8642. Date: Byrne, RCA 527. The monument is
schematically represented in IG II2, photos
are at P. Graindor, Album d’inscriptions attiques d’époque
impériale (1924), pl. 45; P. Jacobsthal,
Diskoi (1933), 23, pl. 16; Sourlas 2015, 321, pl. 4. For photos of
the more usually shaped
monuments, Graindor, pl. 52, pl. 53; AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 10;
Kaltsas 2002, pp. 335-37. 61 See the edition and analysis of
Sourlas 2015 (with ph. p. 318, drawing p. 319) = SEG 65.121;
de
Lisle 2020, 3.5 (iv). The Theseidai appear, together with the
“Herakleidai”, in IG II2 2119, ll. 240-
63 (AIO’s line-numbering), following a reference to the Peri Alkes,
ll. 238-39. 62 The third monument in shield format, Sourlas 2015,
has also been cut down, but unlike our
monument, this process seems to have been designed to produce a
smaller rectilinear block for
secondary use. See the photograph and drawing, Sourlas 2015, pp.
318 and 319. Cf. sect. 1.2.
29
fourteenth year of his tenure, he also carries the title
“priest.”63 He does not carry the title
in our catalogue, so Follet inferred that the date was earlier than
that year.64 However, the
assistant trainer, Eutychianos (165), and the undersecretary,
Publius Aelius Anthos (168),
are the same in both inscriptions, suggesting a date for our
inscription close to 195/6
AD;65 in fact, as Follet observed, 193/4 and 194/5 AD are the only
two possible years.
193/4 AD is now occupied by IG II2 2125, implying that our
inscription probably dates to
194/5 AD.66
The kosmetes, overall superintendent of the ephebes,67 named at the
head of the
inscription, was Marcus Aurelius Alkamenes of Lamptrai (same name
as his son, ll. 136-
139). His father, also an Aurelius Alkamenes, is attested with the
title “Pyrphoros”, an
Eleusinian priesthood, in a number of inscriptions, most notably
playing a prominent role
in a fragmentary decree of the Areopagos of (probably) the year
after our inscription,
195/6 AD.68 The son of the pyrphoros, our ephebic superintendent,
is not known in person
prior to our inscription, but is attested subsequently as
councillor c. 205 AD,69 and as
hoplite general, gymnasiarch of the deified Hadrian and antarchon
of the Panhellenion in
209/10 AD, when he proclaimed the resolution of the Areopagos,
Council and People
celebrating the accession of Geta.70 His son had been ephebic
liturgist in ca. 191/2 AD,71
63 IG II2 2130 = AIUK 11 (Ashmolean), no. 10, l. 8. For the date
(archon C. Helvidius Secundus of
Pallene) see Follet 1976, 230-31, with n. 6; Byrne, RCA 530-31.
Straton is also restored as “priest”
in the catalogue published by E. Kapetanopoulos and G. E.
Malouchou, Horos 17-21 (2004-2009),
174-84 no. 4 = SEG 59.174, l. 5, dated by the editors 192/3 AD or
slightly later (this would seem
to require further analysis). Note also that the son of the
kosmetes, who assisted his father in his
duties in our inscription, had himself been an ephebe in ca. 191/2
AD, IG II2 2119, 19 and 239
(AIO’s line numbering). 64 Follet 1976, 230. 65 Cf. J. A.
Notopoulos, Hesp. 18, 1949, 45. 66 This final step in the argument
is made by Byrne, RCA 530 and 532. A certain caution is in
order given the fragility of some of these chronological
indicators. It is possible, for example, that
Straton was not named as “priest” uniformly after a specific date
(cf. n. 63). 67 For more on the functions of the kosmetes, which
were partly administrative, partly those of a
role model, see de Lisle 2020, sect. 2.1. 68 Byrne, RCA 80,
Aurelius 17. The decree of the Areopagos is Agora XVI 339 (IG II2
1104 etc.) +
IG II2 1118 (associated by S. Follet, in A. A. Themos, N.
Papazarkadas eds., Attika Epigraphika.
Meletes ... Habicht, 2009, 155-63 = SEG 59.136) = AIUK 4.3A (BM,
Decrees of Other Bodies),
no. 10 (see ll. 9, 24, 29). It seems that Alkamenes “Pyrphoros”
played an important role in the
measures stipulated, which apparently entailed a wide-ranging
review of financial and other
aspects of the city’s administration. Alkamenes “Pyrphoros” is also
attested on two or three lists of
aeisitoi (probably in 186/7 AD, Agora XV 411, 28, cf. Byrne, RCA
80; in ca. 191/2 AD, SEG
57.148, 59; and in 209/10 AD, Agora XV 460, 88), and as a dedicant
to Artemis at Eleusis, IG II3
4, 1102 = I Eleus. 530. It is not always certain to which of the
three men named “Alkamenes of
Lamptrai” in successive generations specific epigraphical
references relate. I follow Byrne’s
articulation of the three individuals, which is based on the
assumption that all references to
Alkamenes “Pyrphoros” relate to the father of the kosmetes. 69
Agora XV 468, 10. Alkamenes the ephebic superintendent is Byrne,
RCA 80, Aurelius 18
(where Byrne’s identification of him as archon eponymous is
apparently a misprint). 70 Agora XV 460, ll. 9 and 14. These
references are sometimes attributed to the ephebic
superintendent’s son, but Byrne RCA 81, argues that the importance
of the offices suits better the
elder Alkamenes.
30
and in the curious note on the right side of the shield (ll.
128-138), the kosmetes of our
inscription declares that he decided not to appoint a deputy
(antikosmetes)72 and instead to
give the duties to his son, stating defensively that appointment of
an antikosmetes was not
required by law.73 Apparently he wanted his son to perform the role
but could not actually
appoint him for some reason. It seems that this was not because of
a bar on appointing
relatives, since there are several cases of sons and brothers
serving as antikosmetes.74
Perhaps, as de Lisle attractively suggests,75 it reflects a minimum
age requirement. In the
fourth century there had been such an age limit for sophronistai
and kosmetai (forty
years); this would be our only attestation of it in the Imperial
period.76